|
Musicmystery -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/6/2014 10:36:00 AM)
|
1) Given Bomb Boy's repeated insistence that nothing has happened in Islamic science since the Mongol invasion, the dumb interpretation is his. In fact, it's the signature piece of his argument. I can decide (a) that's really what he thinks, and he's an idiot, especially in ignoring evidence to the contrary, or (b) decide he's playing at ignorant, which makes him by definition unreasonable. Either way, charity isn't going to resolve that. He's either blind or willfully ridiculous.
2) Ken repeatedly insists that current science is dogma. To ignore that this contradicts the very heart of Tyson's position defies logic. When that's pointed out, Kenneth goes off on bizarre topics, calling anyone in earshot dumb. Charity isn't going to help that.
3) You, while less vociferous, are likewise entrenched, dismissing "false assumptions" (which are well established in science) while expecting your own assumptions (all arguments begin with assumptions) to be ipso facto factual. There's nothing reasonable about that either. The charity I can afford you is that, while I suspect (but true, don't necessarily know) that pure pride and desire to "win" (whatever the fuck that means here) is driving Ken's and Bomb Boy's silliness, you actually appear to believe your position, despite its inherent contradiction. When that contradiction is pointed out, by me or Kirata (or anyone else), you simply reassert the flawed premise, and whine that we aren't listening. We are -- and we disagree, for the reasons noted.
Now, you can march off in a huff of superiority, or you can do what good philosophic rhetoric does -- either (a) provide backing and evidence for your warrants (assumptions), or (b) concede the faulty points and qualify your position, or even (c) provide better counterarguments.
So far, the closest thing you have to an argument is "Well, while not the main issue, it still could be a factor!" Yes, it could, like all speculation.
Meanwhile, if you were truly concerned about the decline in science, you'd be concerned about the real and current threat via funding slashes.
But you aren't. You are exclusively focused on finding fault with religion. And the trouble with that argument is that science can and has flourished under it, alerting us to the reality that religion per se is not the cause. We can't even fault Fundamentalism, as there was plenty of that during the Golden Age as well.
Tyson is a smart man. I like him. But the focus of his piece is to go after fundamentalists, as this is his crusade. In this case, while "staying on topic," he's ignored better explanations, as many have noted in the many links in this thread.
You continue to simply ignore these points, rather than to dispute them beyond mere dismissal. Kind of puts you in an uncharitable position, doesn't it.
|
|
|
|
